December 6, 2015

Clinton Will Make a Better President Because She IS THE Better Candidate.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/5/1457319/-The-Revolution-Will-Not-be-Televised-Why-Clinton-Will-Make-a-Better-President

By Gaius Septimus

I will begin with a point that many here have made already. In order to win the nomination, Bernard Sanders will have to win the support of many many Hillary Clinton supporters. At least based on the latest round of polling, he is failing to do that. If the response to this from some quarters will be that Obama did it in 2007 or that no votes have been cast yet, I will agree with you.

At the same time, I will argue, Sanders is not a great candidate. I will not discuss individual failings or missed opportunities. I would like to just step back and look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that his message and his campaign are not breaking through. This despite the fact that he has offered the most populist rhetoric in recent memory and the most left-leaning platform since at least George McGovern. The first test here is to win a friendly audience. The Democratic Party at large is a friendly audience. It is the friendliest audience Sanders is likely to have from here on out. That should be obvious to anyone. So, if he is failing to win here, the task of winning the general election would frankly be insurmountable. Because the national audience will not be as friendly or as partial to his platform.

For those of you who still remember, it must have been thrilling to see Walter Mondale in 1984 come out and say, “I will raise your taxes. President Reagan will raise your taxes. The difference between us is that he will never tell you. I already did.” Mondale was a great and honest public servant. A liberal at heart, supporter of women’s rights (he nominated Geraldine Ferraro as his VP pick — the first woman on a major party's ticket). If you have the time, read his memoir, The Good Fight: A Life in Liberal Politics. It is quite a read, from one of the most honest and consistent public figures of our recent history. But then came Election Night, and Reagan won everything except Minnesota and DC. The point of this history lesson is this — good platforms do not speak for themselves. They require a good speaker and a good politician. Based on his performance so far, Sanders is neither. Yes, the platform is good. And yes, the candidate falls short.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton, at least based on polling, has continued to solidify her support within the Democratic Party and, even by Quinnipiac Poll standards is now better positioned against all the GOP candidates than she was even recently. More telling is the fact that she vastly outperforms Sanders among Democrats on virtually every issue. In my book, that makes her the better candidate — she is managing to convince more people. It is that simple.

Bernard Sanders did not discover the problem that large numbers of people do not vote and that this is mostly a problem for Democrats, especially in midterm elections. This is something that has been pointed out numerous times. The revolution Sanders is talking about is bringing out non-voters to the polls, empowering them, while at the same time propelling more Democrats into office and thus giving a mandate and Congressional voting majorities for a Democratic agenda. Sounds extremely good. I am convinced. I am on fire. But how does Sanders propose to do this? How? What I hear when I listen to him and what I see when I read diaries written by his supporters on this website, I the following answer to this: he proposes to do this by talking to people about problems that matter to them, by taking positions that make them enthusiastic to support him and therefore more likely to come out and vote for him. Based on the polling, he is not very effective in this tactic. But then, on the other hand, this is a sort of a non-response on his part. This is the same platitude about voting that candidates of both parties have spouted for years. Revolution? Not. Apart from other separate issues such as Citizens United (he wants it overturned), or the gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court (he wants that decision overturned too), Sanders’ propositions on how to achieve this so-called revolution are piecemeal and not especially imaginative. You can read about them here, on the website created for him by his supporters.

That Sanders has built his entire campaign on this premise of revolution but does not, in fact, offer much in the way of achieving this goal, speaks volumes to me. By contrast, California Governor Brown recently signed into law the automatic registration of CA voters for election. That seems way more revolutionary to me.

But more troublesome for Sanders is how he has proposed to break the gridlock in DC. Bring masses of people in outspoken protest and demonstrate to Congress that his policies are the will of the people. Lest we forget, in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown the anger at Wall Street boiled over. Remember Occupy Wall Street? The point I want to make here is this — Occupy Wall Street may have had a limited success in some ways, mostly as a propaganda vehicle that furthered negative attitudes about corporate greed and highlighted the plight of ordinary Americans that resulted from the 2008 fiasco. But… the larger point here is this. First. If Occupy was in some sense a preview of Sanders’ proposed revolution and method of governing… do you want this type of thing all the time? Secondly. Can Sanders hope to mobilize even that amount of people, or something similar, and keep that level of involvement throughout his presidency? Lastly, what did Occupy Wall Street achieve, legislatively speaking? You and I both know they had demands, petitions, etc. What part of that ever translated into law? If you are scratching your head, frankly, so am I. And Sanders hopes that a similar phenomenon, if he becomes president, will help him govern? I am skeptical, to say the least.

Hillary Clinton is also talking about the issues she thinks connect her to voters. Her agenda on jobs and taxes, on the proposed infrastructure upgrade strike home to middle class Americans. She has taken stand after stand for voting rights, including a major speech in Alabama where she demanded Alabama revise the closure of DMV offices in predominantly black counties. She has been most systematic in addressing both Black Lives Matter and a larger campaign for racial justice. She has been outspoken about Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act as well. Does she have a Super PAC? You bet! Because like it or not this is how you win elections in America. Obama got similar support in 2008 and 2012. Being pure and unsullied of corporate donations may sound very well on paper. But when the attack ads start coming and the other side mobilizes a veritable army for the final push in the “ground game” you better have an answer and be prepared. Purity is nice. Unfortunately, it does not win elections. Realism does. To the extent that Hillary Clinton realizes this and is doing everything in her power to win, she has a clearer vision, unobscured by the demands of ideological purity. I like her agenda. And I like what she is doing to make sure she actually wins and is in a position to implement that agenda.

Finally, Bernard Sanders has proudly enunciated an uncompromising anti-corporate stance. Judging from the bulk of diaries published on this site by his supporters, this is one of the main sources of his strength, the wellspring of his entire movement, the raison d’etre of his very candidacy. So perhaps I should have started with this. But I am leaving it for the end for a very good reason. I believe if Sanders actually believes what he is saying in this context, if he actually intends to implement it, then, forgive me but his stance is both unrealistic and, in a broader sense, inefficient. Sanders’ supporters often like to make comparisons between the US and other developed countries and find the US lacking in many respects. Sanders himself began one of his responses during the first Democratic debate with “In Denmark...” However, in the countries which are held up as examples for the rest of us, that better state of affairs did not come about as a result of either a revolution or some sort of corporate-smashing policies adopted by those governments. We are seeing in those European countries a present state of affairs that is the result of a long and painful process of negotiation between government and business… it is the result of mutual agreement. So I am really wary of a candidate who has adopted such a stringent anti-corporate logic and rhetoric and of a mass of supporters who keep saying how they would like nothing better than to “take the hammer” to Wall Street. Because that is even more “socialist” than what we see even in the most left of the socialist countries in Europe, like Finland or that selfsame Denmark.

And so. Hillary Clinton will make a far better president in this sense. Yes, her platform is progressive. Yes, she wants to raise the minimum wage. And yes, she has spoken out repeatedly against corporate greed and corporate crime. But guess what, she also spoke several times about representing “all of New York," including Wall Street in the Senate. She has a progressive agenda while being attuned to the interests of corporations. That is a far better and more realistic stand than empty bombastic rhetoric. Do you know what is seen as the most efficient solution to reducing carbon emissions? It is some version of Cap-and-Trade, which boils down to making carbon emitters pay for the pollution they cause. Do you know why even scientists and environmental leaders believe that is a good solution? Because it co opts businesses, it translates the problem into language they can understand — the language of costs. Of course, most businesses will not do that voluntarily. But, my point is, the solution includes and co opts these corporations, it does not take the hammer to them or destroy them. The Affordable Care Act is another example. Yes, single payer would have been better. But ACA reduced risks for the insurance industry by requiring all insurance companies to insure less healthy people. If you think ANY form of ACA would have passed without some insurance company support, you are really delusional. So here again, an improvement was achieved by coopting businesses and working with understanding about their interests.

Sanders, in a way, wants to have it both ways here. On one hand, we see and hear his unabashed anti-corporate stance. On the other hand, when talking about why he is the better candidate on guns, Sanders keeps saying how he, being from a rural state, understands the gun issue and can bring “both sides" to the table to negotiate common sense gun legislation. So then… he can be common sense on guns? But absolutely principled in his stringent anti-corporate rhetoric? Why?

So I will not cede any “corporate" ground to Bernard Sanders. In this, like in everything I have outlined above, his positions are one-sided and unrealistic. Hillary Clinton is proposing much sounder policies, and has a much better chance of achieving these policies once in office."

December 6, 2015

Hillary receives 12 more endorsements in South Carolina. Campaign launches terrific new ad in SC!

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/5/1457326/-Hillary-receives-four-more-endorsements-in-South-Carolina-Campaign-launches-terrific-new-ad-in-SC

?1449371281

The ringing endorsements for Secretary Clinton keep coming in South Carolina. Democrats continue to coalesce around the frontrunner and our future President.

Read what a couple of these endorsers had to say about Hillary.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/hillary-clinton-south-carolina-endorsements/index.html

Rep. Justin Bamberg said he supports Clinton because of her plan for reforming the criminal justice system

I believe that President Clinton, I say President because I believe she will be the next president of the U.S., can effectively tackle these issues," Bamberg said.
Rep. James Smith

"Our next President must stand ready and have a vision to address the significant threats of ISIS and global terrorism to keep our country safe. Especially in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks, it's clear that Hillary is uniquely qualified to serve as our next Commander-in-Chief.”

State senator John Matthews, the longest serving African American in the assembly, and senator Margie Bright-Matthews, the only African-American female senator in the assembly, also backed the former secretary of state.

http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article48066140.html

Other endorsements announced Friday include:

State Sens. Karl Allen of Greenville, Brad Hutto of Orangeburg, Darrell Jackson of Richland, Kevin Johnson of Clarendon

State Reps. Jimmy Bales of Richland, Joseph Jefferson of Berkeley, Mia McLeod of Richland and Walt McLeod of Newberry

This is a terrific new radio ad, that will be running in SC. It highlights her mother’s story and how it shaped her into the person she is today.

It's a positive and great radio ad! She also mentions she proudly served President Obama! Have a listen!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/darrensands/hillary-clinton-launches-first-radio-ad-in-south-carolina#.amZZEwzk7

I’ve done many jobs since,” she says in the ad, and talks about her mother’s work to fight for a better life for her. “But working here on the problems facing children helped shape my fight for families.”

“I served proudly in President Obama’s cabinet and I’m running for president now to make sure every child has a chance to live up to his or her God-given potential. And that every family can get ahead and stay ahead,” Clinton says.

https://soundcloud.com/hillary-clinton-976818877/hillary-for-america-my-story

December 5, 2015

Clinton Makes Small Gains on her huge lead in National Race- Today in Primary Polling

?1449184729

THE STATES

Nothing so far today from the states

NATIONAL

CNN/ORC

Clinton 58

Sanders 30

O’Malley 2
Interestingly enough, this particular poll also shows a pretty stable race over a long stretch of time. Their last poll, in mid October, found that Clinton led 56-33 (when Biden was excluded). So Clinton is up a notch, Sanders is down a bit, but neither of them with movement outside the margin of error.

Their poll from mid-September had Clinton leading a Biden-free race 57-28. CNN’s numbers have tended to be close to what most others are finding, and that is no different here. Folks who went for Biden over Hillary in previous polls may have represented her softer support, but so far none of her rivals have managed to take advantage of that.

Cont...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/05/1456893/-Clinton-Makes-Small-Gains-on-her-huge-lead-in-National-Race-Today-in-Primary-Polling

December 5, 2015

Poll: Clinton expands favorability lead over Sanders

Less than two months ahead of the first contests in the Democratic presidential primary, Hillary Clinton's net favorable rating among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents has risen even higher when compared to that of her closest rival in Bernie Sanders.
According to the results of Gallup's U.S. Daily survey conducted in November and released Friday, the former secretary of state's net favorable rating is 21 points higher than the Vermont senator's, an increase of 8 points from late September and early October.

More than three-in-four Democrats and leaners surveyed — 76 percent — said they had a favorable opinion of Clinton, while 18 percent said they did not, for a positive rating of +58 points. In the last survey, Clinton had a net favorability rating of +51 points, with 73 percent to 22 percent seeing her in a positive light.

In the case of Sanders, 51 percent gave him favorable marks, while 14 percent said they had an unfavorable view of him. Taken together, a slight increase in Clinton's favorability rating and a slight decrease in Sanders' resulted in the overall favorability disparity between the two candidates, who along with Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, will next debate on Dec. 19 in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Clinton's favorability numbers increased along all gender and generational groups over the last month, while Sanders suffered declines among every group except among women (a 1-point uptick) and those aged 18 to 29 (a 7-point jump). Sanders' sole demographic advantage over Clinton in the poll comes from the 18-to-29 group, with 50 percent having a favorable opinion of him and just 39 percent having a favorable opinion of Clinton.

Results from the poll came from interviews conducted as part of Gallup's U.S. Daily survey from Nov. 1-30, randomly sampling 1,628 adults identifying as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents who rated Clinton and 1,592 Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents who rated Sanders. For both samples, the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/poll-democrats-2016-hillary-clinton-216422#ixzz3tP4OwEvd

December 4, 2015

Samantha Bee has reimagined Ted Cruz's election campaign and it is pretty tremendous (#Cruzcuts)

Samantha Bee left the Daily Show earlier this year. Enjoyed by millions for her sardonic smile and creeping wit on the Daily Show, she is now focused, as are many Daily Show alumni, on a late-night talk show—Full Frontal. With the show on the horizon, she has begun promoting it via social media sites like Twitter. Her newest campaign is a series of shorts called #CruzCuts, where presidential hopeful—and all around creep show personality—Ted Cruz is lambasted in absurdist fashion. What Samantha Bee and her team have done is get some fair use outtakes and footage, clearly shot by Ted Cruz for campaign commercials, and reimagine them.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/4/1456786/-Samantha-Bee-has-reimagined-Ted-Cruz-s-election-campaign-and-it-is-pretty-tremendous

December 3, 2015

Labor Secretary Perez endorses Hillary Clinton for president

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/03/labor-secretary-perez-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president/



Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez, who has become one of President Obama's top emissaries to liberal, labor and Latino constituencies, is backing Hillary Clinton for president and plans to hit the campaign trail on her behalf.

Perez, who plans to formally endorse Clinton on Friday in Iowa, portrayed Clinton as a progressive fighter who can grab the baton from Obama and take care of the nation's "unfinished business."

"Progressives believe in making progress, which is why I'm proud to endorse Hillary Clinton who I know will continue fighting to ensure our children and grandchildren can achieve their highest and best dreams," Perez said in a statement provided by the Clinton campaign. "Secretary Clinton is tough, smart, and understands better than any candidate the challenges that parents are talking about around dinner tables and keeping families up at night."

Perez added, "In the coming months, I look forward to hitting the campaign trail to highlight the progress we've made as a nation, the unfinished business, and why Hillary Clinton is the fighter we need leading that effort."

Perez's endorsement is significant for Clinton considering his ties to one of her rivals for the Democratic nomination, former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley. Perez, who lives in Takoma Park and once was a member of the Montgomery County Council, served in O'Malley's cabinet as the state's secretary of labor, licensing and regulation.

During Obama's first term, Perez served at the Justice Department as assistant attorney general for the civil rights division and was deeply immersed in police discrimination and voting rights issues. In 2013, Obama promoted him to secretary of labor.

A son of Dominican immigrants, Perez has strong relationships with key leaders and activists in the liberal, labor and Latino communities, which are influential in Democratic primary politics. Should Clinton be elected president, Perez would be a likely contender to serve in her Cabinet, perhaps as attorney general.

Perez is the third Obama Cabinet member to endorse Clinton, joining Thomas J. Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture and a former governor of Iowa, and Julián Castro, the secretary of housing and urban development and a former mayor of San Antonio.

A Clinton campaign official said Perez intends to campaign vigorously as a Clinton surrogate, including trips to early voting states and places with large Latino populations.

Perez's endorsement comes after Clinton has received the endorsements of 15 national labor unions representing more than 11 million workers.

December 3, 2015

Clinton secures major labor endorsements from building trades

The labor organization representing the U.S. building trades on Thursday endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, giving her the backing of national labor groups that represent more than 11 million workers.

North America's Building Trades President Sean McGarvey praised a $275 billion infrastructure plan Clinton announced this week as "robust, yet entirely practical."

The building trades group is an alliance of 14 unions that represent 3 million skilled craft professionals. One of its member unions, the International Heat and Frost Insulators, endorsed Clinton this week.
Insulators President James McCourt, in a letter to Clinton seen by Reuters, praised her "recognition of the significant contributions of our members to energy efficiency."

Clinton said in a statement to Reuters: "I am honored to receive the endorsement of the Insulators Union, whose leadership in energy efficiency is essential to making America a clean energy superpower."

She now has the backing of 16 individual unions, along with the building trades alliance, that collectively represent more than 11 million workers. Roughly 14.6 million workers - about 11.1 percent of the workforce - are union members, according to U.S. government data.

Some of Clinton's endorsements include influential unions such as the AFSCME, a public employees union with 1.6 million members, and the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, which has about 2 million members in a variety of professions that range from nursing to janitorial services.

The building trades group and the 30,000-member insulators union are both affiliated with the AFL-CIO, a federation of 56 labor unions that collectively represent more than 12 million workers.

The AFL-CIO has not yet endorsed a candidate and has not traditionally done so in recent presidential elections until the party-nominating contests are nearly decided.

Endorsements by national unions do not prevent their rank-and-file members from supporting a different candidate, such as Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

But the fact that Clinton has secured such a large portion of organized labor's support ahead of the first nominating contests in February shows the momentum she is gaining ahead of the general election in November 2016, when union workers are traditionally important on-the-ground foot soldiers for Democratic candidates.

Clinton's emphasis this month on jobs, and infrastructure in particular, is a move to woo working-class voters, who will be critical to winning the general election.


Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/03/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKBN0TM0CJ20151203#4vGSVsqD0IywTLtW.99

November 24, 2015

Americans Trust Hillary Clinton Over Any Republican To Handle Terrorism

Link: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/23/americans-trust-hillary-clinton-republican-handle-terrorism.html

?resize=631%2C485

When it comes to keeping Americans safe from the threat of a terrorist attack, a Washington Post-ABC News Poll released on November 23rd, found that voters trust Hillary Clinton more than any Republican presidential candidate. The survey asked voters who they trusted most “to handle the threat of terrorism,” and regardless of who she was paired up against, American voters answered “Hillary Clinton” every time.

When asked who they trusted more to handle the terrorist threat, Americans chose Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a 50-42 percent margin. Clinton was also preferred over Ben Carson (49-40), Ted Cruz (48-40), Marco Rubio (47-43) and Jeb Bush (46-43).

The Republican candidates have engaged in a lot of tough talking rhetoric about bombing ISIS or shutting America off for Syrian refugees, but their bellicose posturing has not earned them the trust of the American people. Hillary Clinton remains more trusted than the GOP when it comes to confronting the terrorist threat.

For Republicans who have spent the past several years trying to discredit Clinton through the Benghazi hearings and a relentless litany of attacks designed to paint her as weak on security, the poll must be very disconcerting. Fox News, AM talk radio, and Trey Gowdy’s investigative committee, have all failed in their efforts to get Americans to think the Republicans would do a better job than Hillary Clinton at keeping America safe .

The Republicans will almost certainly continue to try to hammer home the theme that they are the tough guys on the block who can take on the terrorists, and they will no doubt continue to try to portray the Democrats as weak on foreign policy and on protecting the homeland. However, Hillary Clinton is used to those lines of attack, and she is also aware that her steady resolve in the face of those attacks projects the very strength the GOP is desperately trying to say she lacks.

Americans recognize that in dangerous times, Hillary Clinton is a better choice to be commander in chief than any Republican. An endless barrage of GOP attacks against Clinton have been unable to alter that perception. Americans still think Hillary is their best bet for dealing with the threat of terrorism.

November 20, 2015

A Whiter Shade of Pale in the refugee refusal playoffs: The GOP as an oily friend of Boko Haram

?1447961302

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/11/19/1452132/-A-Whiter-Shade-of-Pale-in-the-refugee-refusal-playoffs-The-GOP-as-an-oily-friend-of-Boko-Haram

As kos has pointed out, the Syrian refugee “crisis” is a manufactured conflict of the most cynical type and the reality is that ISIL/Daesh may not be the primary “radical Islamist” enemy not unlike the ultimate failure to stop US domestic terrorism is by increasing domestic repression in order to leverage RW power.

In the case of GOP governors posturing about refusing refugees because they are potential terrorists, the real danger in numbers is more likely from white supremacists in each GOP state and a probable state-level reluctance to install state-level border controls. So far, the GOP has managed to forgive the French and its Frites in order to seek domestic political capital.

SELECTIVE OUTRAGE.

If North Dakota can finally choose a mascot “The Fighting Hawks” for one of its two major state universities, then US hawks should be able to reconcile their fetish for selective, cultural domination over the world. Since Charlie Hebdo, we now see the real problem of all those Hebdo(sic) people of color everywhere scaring already frightened US low information voters (LIVs or LoFos) in the discourse of GOP POTUS candidates to the tune of Lindsey Graham wanting 10,000 US ground troops in Syria.

As with all international entanglements, conflicts are about natural resources, whether or not renewable and it’s always about trading individuals’ blood for big oil. As 2016 approaches, posturing over military action under the umbrella of national security should not drive the policy memes.

(Cont. in link)

November 19, 2015

Boko Haram Actually Kills More People In Terror Attacks Than ISIS

Let's not forget the horrific terror group taking lives in northern Nigeria.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/boko-haram-isis_564cd890e4b00b7997f8c15d

This week, the world’s deadliest terror group wrought extraordinary carnage on crowds of people going about their daily lives.

The fruit and vegetable market in the northern Nigerian city of Yola was packed with customers buying food for dinner when a suicide bomber struck on Tuesday evening, killing at least 34 people. "The ground near my shop was covered with dead bodies," Alhaji Ahmed told Reuters.

Then on Wednesday, as afternoon prayers approached, two young women strapped with explosives detonated at a busy mobile phone market in the nearby city of Kano. At least 15 people were killed in the twin blasts, according to The Associated Press.

Both bombings are widely believed to be the work of Nigerian militant group Boko Haram, which rarely claims responsibility for specific attacks but has waged a bloody six-year insurgency in the region.

A new report this week found Boko Haram has overtaken the so-called Islamic State as the “most deadly terror group in the world.”

(More in link)